Live data from Hacker News

The controversy over child killing among Amazon tribes in Brazil

foreignpolicy.com

11–20 of 59 posts

Re: The controversy over child killing among Amazon tribes in Brazil

#11
post #10

"cultural relativity" phrase probably wasn't intended to justify "anything is OK"... so anything is "OK" as long as it has "tradition"? A mafia mob family with a "tradition" in killing ppl around is OK because it's "tradition"? What's next? Claiming that Nazi killing was a "cultural thing"?

Why even this comment is flagged? maybe downvoted by HN people who buried their children alive by tradition?

Probably because it's a case of Godwin's Law (without justification), and is an over-simplistic and emotive comment that is likely to trigger a flame-war.

Re: The controversy over child killing among Amazon tribes in Brazil

#12
post #4

> That was the “introduction in the Suruwaha’s symbolic universe of a possible resolution to a problem, in their lives, by means other than those under their control by traditional practices.” There is the general point about how indegenous tribes are handled. As I understand from the article, they are set as communities that are independant from national and international laws, can keep their traditions and set thei…

It's very easy to reconcile the child/adult treatment:

If they wish to continue to follow traditional rules that lie outside what modern society accepts, they cannot be part of modern society.

If they want to trade, share ideas and generally meet with the rest of the world, they must reconcile their traditions with things like human rights.

You might argue that China is not following human rights and they are a major player internally,but these tribes do not wield power like China does, and would be powerless against Brazilian authorities.

A good question, however, is who gets to make that deciSoon to include or exclude these tribes from modern society.

Re: The controversy over child killing among Amazon tribes in Brazil

#14
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why even this comment is flagged? maybe downvoted by HN people who buried their children alive by tradition?

Probably because it's a case of Godwin's Law (without justification), and is an over-simplistic and emotive comment that is likely to trigger a flame-war.

So is GP, which is ad-hominem-ish.

Re: The controversy over child killing among Amazon tribes in Brazil

#15
There are important questions about the nature of social progress here.

The situation in Brazil is not all that different, ethical-relativity-wise, than the situation between, say, Iran and Finland. Iranian law requires capital punishment for many behaviors which Finland (which has outlawed the death penalty altogether) would not consider illegal or forbidden in any way.

There is a big difference in degree between those kinds of situations--size of community, scale of killing, et cetera--but the same fundamental questions emerge from both:

Are some communities codes (laws) "more ethical" than others? In other words: fiating that morality exists as a qualifiable (if hard to qualify in an agreed-upon way) thing, is it also quantifiable?

If so, are the "more ethical" communities morally allowed (or obligated, even) to encourage/demand that "less ethical" communities change their codes?

If that is so, is there a difference-in-degree below which "more/less ethical" becomes meaningless--i.e. is "group A sacrifices Emacs users to the Vim-dragon every day, but group B only makes the sacrifices on the day of the full moon; therefore group B is necessarily more humane" an instance of progress via incrementalism or false virtuosity?

What role does the massive power imbalance between the "more ethical" state in this instance (Brazil) and the "less ethical" groups (indigenous/isolated communities) play in determining how the conflict should be resolved? For example, if child-killing was practiced, say, by a large nation-state and the USA decided that, due to this practice, it would impose US law on that nation-state by force, would the situation be any different?*

* given the US's justification for some of its past wars, this is less than hypothetical.

Edits: typos.

Re: The controversy over child killing among Amazon tribes in Brazil

#16
post #13

Nevermind.

I disagree. Rather than have the Brazilian government use coercion and 'haul them out' it is better to let those within that community know there is a way out and offer help to those who want to get out. It's clear many within that community don't agree with this already (like the parents who committed suicide rather than kill their children) and if they could know they could escape that would preferable than forcing views on to other people.

What if our views change about this in the future? Then should they be forced to kill their children even though they don't want to? I know that sounds insane but this happens. There's the classic example of when British colonialists were horrified that homosexuality was not considered a crime in India and they introduced a new law. Well here in the UK that view has completely changed but India still has the law (although it's not enforced), now should we go and tell them they're bad again and force them to change it back? No, they need to understand for themselves and do it themselves. Interference in this way is not a good idea, it just builds resentment. This is true for any argument, rather than force people to do it your way, let them realize on their own why your way is the better way.

Also I don't see why them not being able survive in modern warfare matters. Canada wouldn't survive in modern warfare against the USA but that doesn't mean the Canadians be hauled out. ISIS could be destroyed today by nuking the towns they are in but that would kill innocent people too. If you think coercion is wrong why not apply it consistently. Remember also that if you want them to stop killing their disabled children then someone will have to pay for them, probably Brazilian tax payers, are they willing to do that, also that starts a whole other debate about aborting of disabled children too, this is a hugely complex issue and hauling anyone out to impose one view I think is not necessarily the best way. I would advocate providing support to those who want out of the tribe.

Re: The controversy over child killing among Amazon tribes in Brazil

#19

"cultural relativity" phrase probably wasn't intended to justify "anything is OK"... so anything is "OK" as long as it has "tradition"? A mafia mob family with a "tradition" in killing ppl around is OK because it's "tradition"? What's next? Claiming that Nazi killing was a "cultural thing"?

Nazi killing was cultural thing, quite literally. Also, they were not independently living group of people killing among themselves, Germans attacked nearby countries. They were threat to everyone else, Nazism was not some kind of cruel internal thing.

That comparison does not work at all, regardless of whether you think tribes should be left to do what they do or not.

Re: The controversy over child killing among Amazon tribes in Brazil

#20
post #17

The West does this with down syndrome. In the UK apparently 90% of pregnancies with prenatally diagnosed Down syndrome are terminated. (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-wouldve-aborted-a-... for example)

It's easier to judge small tribes as being backwards than to look at ourselves and see the backwardness, and that we're really not any different.
Post reply on HN